Search

ObjectivesMore children are surviving critical illness but are at risk of residual or new health conditions. An evidence-informed and stakeholder-recommended core outcome set is lacking for pediatric critical care outcomes. Our objective was to create a multinational, multistakeholder-recommended pediatric critical care core outcome set for inclusion in clinical and research programs.DesignA two-round modified Delphi electronic survey was conducted with 333 invited research, clinical, and family/advocate stakeholders. Stakeholders completing the first round were invited to participate in the second. Outcomes scoring greater than 69% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" advanced to round 2 with write-in outcomes considered. The Steering Committee held a virtual consensus conference to determine the final components.SettingMultinational survey.PatientsStakeholder participants from six continents representing clinicians, researchers, and family/advocates.Measurements and main resultsOverall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round. Participants voted on seven Global Domains and 45 Specific Outcomes in round 1, and six Global Domains and 30 Specific Outcomes in round 2. Using overall (three stakeholder groups combined) results, consensus was defined as outcomes scoring greater than 90% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" and were included in the final PICU core outcome set: four Global Domains (Cognitive, Emotional, Physical, and Overall Health) and four Specific Outcomes (Child Health-Related Quality of Life, Pain, Survival, and Communication). Families (n = 21) suggested additional critically important outcomes that did not meet consensus, which were included in the PICU core outcome set-extended.ConclusionsThe PICU core outcome set and PICU core outcome set-extended are multistakeholder-recommended resources for clinical and research programs that seek to improve outcomes for children with critical illness and their families.

BackgroundPediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) teams provide care for critically ill children with diverse and often complex medical and surgical conditions. Researchers often lack guidance on an approach to select the best outcomes when evaluating this critically ill population. Studies would be enhanced by incorporating multi-stakeholder preferences to better evaluate clinical care. This manuscript outlines the methodology currently being used to develop a PICU Core Outcome Set (COS). This PICU COS utilizes mixed methods, an inclusive stakeholder approach, and a modified Delphi consensus process that will serve as a resource for PICU research programs.MethodsA Scoping Review of the PICU literature evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness, a qualitative study interviewing PICU survivors and their parents, and other relevant literature will serve to inform a modified, international Delphi consensus process. The Delphi process will derive a set of minimum domains for evaluation of outcomes of critically ill children and their families. Delphi respondents include researchers, multidisciplinary clinicians, families and former patients, research funding agencies, payors, and advocates. Consensus meetings will refine and finalize the domains of the COS, outline a battery instruments for use in future studies, and prepare for extensive dissemination for broad implementation.DiscussionThe PICU COS will be a guideline resource for investigators to assure that outcomes most important to all stakeholders are considered in PICU clinical research in addition to those deemed most important to individual scientists.Trial registrationCOMET database (http://www.comet-initiative.org/, Record ID 1131, 01/01/18).

ObjectiveTo compare current analgesia and sedation management practices between critically ill children with pre-existing cognitive impairment and critically ill neurotypical children, including possible indicators of therapeutic efficacy.Study designThis study used secondary analysis of prospective data from the RESTORE clinical trial, with 2449 children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit and receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Subjects with a baseline Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category ≥3 were defined as subjects with cognitive impairment, and differences between groups were explored using regression methods accounting for pediatric intensive care unit as a cluster variable.ResultsThis study identified 412 subjects (17%) with cognitive impairment. Compared with neurotypical subjects, subjects with cognitive impairment were older (median, years, 6.2 vs 1.4; P

ImportanceProtocolized sedation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults, but its effect in children is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether critically ill children managed with a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol experience fewer days of mechanical ventilation than patients receiving usual care.Design, setting, and participantsCluster randomized trial conducted in 31 US pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). A total of 2449 children (mean age, 4.7 years; range, 2 weeks to 17 years) mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure were enrolled in 2009-2013 and followed up until 72 hours after opioids were discontinued, 28 days, or hospital discharge.InterventionIntervention PICUs (17 sites; n = 1225 patients) used a protocol that included targeted sedation, arousal assessments, extubation readiness testing, sedation adjustment every 8 hours, and sedation weaning. Control PICUs (14 sites; n = 1224 patients) managed sedation per usual care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included time to recovery from acute respiratory failure, duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation, neurological testing, PICU and hospital lengths of stay, in-hospital mortality, sedation-related adverse events, measures of sedative exposure (wakefulness, pain, and agitation), and occurrence of iatrogenic withdrawal.ResultsDuration of mechanical ventilation was not different between the 2 groups (intervention: median, 6.5 [IQR, 4.1-11.2] days; control: median, 6.5 [IQR, 3.7-12.1] days). Sedation-related adverse events including inadequate pain and sedation management, clinically significant iatrogenic withdrawal, and unplanned endotracheal tube/invasive line removal were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Intervention patients experienced more postextubation stridor (7% vs 4%; P = .03) and fewer stage 2 or worse immobility-related pressure ulcers (

Introduction: As paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) mortality declines, there is growing recognition of the morbidity experienced by children surviving critical illness and their families. A comprehensive understanding of the adverse physical, cognitive, emotional and social sequelae common to PICU survivors is limited, however, and the trajectory of recovery and risk factors for morbidity remain unknown., Methods and Analysis: The Post-Intensive Care Syndrome - paediatrics Longitudinal Cohort Study will evaluate child and family outcomes over 2 years following PICU discharge and identify child and clinical factors associated with impaired outcomes. We will enrol 750 children from 30 US PICUs during their first PICU hospitalisation, including 500 case participants experiencing ≥3 days of intensive care that include critical care therapies (eg, mechanical ventilation, vasoactive infusions) and 250 age-matched, sex-matched and medical complexity-matched control participants experiencing a single night in the PICU with no intensive care therapies. Children, parents and siblings will complete surveys about health-related quality of life, physical function, cognitive status, emotional health and peer and family relationships at multiple time points from baseline recall through 2 years post-PICU discharge. We will compare outcomes and recovery trajectories of case participants to control participants, identify risk factors associated with poor outcomes and determine the emotional and social health consequences of paediatric critical illness on parents and siblings., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has received ethical approval from the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (protocol #843844). Our overall objective is to characterise the ongoing impact of paediatric critical illness to guide development of interventions that optimise outcomes among children surviving critical illness and their families. Findings will be presented at key disciplinary meetings and in peer-reviewed publications at fixed data points. Published manuscripts will be added to our public study website to ensure findings are available to families, clinicians and researchers., Trials Registration Number: NCT04967365., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)